CHARANJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. I.T.O. WARD 43(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 747/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps at various levels, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, could not be ruled out. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the assessee's appeal and restore it back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Charanjit Singh, has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.08.2023. This order was passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel stated that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the lower authority's decision to make additions on merits. The ITAT noted the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps preventing the assessee from presenting all facts. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, they were unable to appear and plead all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter should be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the learned lower authority's action and the additions made on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.05.2025Pronounced: 26.05.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Charanjit Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-40, Rajouri Garden, Ward-43(3), Delhi Delhi PAN :AEBPC8540A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Dalhit Singh, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055395939(1), dated 24.08.2023 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings, and, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.

4.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →